Dismissed

Nandhi Dall Mills v. Idbi Bank

DRT13 May 2025SA/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers to challenge a Section 14 order of physical possession. The Tribunal held the application barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the 45-day mandate of Section 17, citing Supreme Court precedents that SARFAESI proceedings require speedy enforcement without condoning delay. Furthermore, the Section 14 order,

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as barred by limitation; Section 14 order upheld as lawful.

Nandhi Dall Mills versus Idbi Bank — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of May, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 14 of 2023

¶9

M/s. Nandhi Dall Mills, Rep by its Partner S.A. Kumar. 2. Mr. S.A. Kumar S/o. Arunachala Nadar 3. Mrs. K. Jayanthi W/o. S.A Kumar 4. Mr. K. Arun S/o S.A. Kumar All are residing at No.270, Narasimman Road, Shevapet, Salem – 636 002. ….Applicant -VsIDBI Bank Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, & Authorized Officer 2^nd Floor, IDBI Building, 115, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai -600 015. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ananda Gomathy Counsel for respondent : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

¶12

ORDER ON SA 14/2023

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶18

The applicant is challenging the Order dated 18.08.2022 in Roc.No.18555/2017/C5 passed by Hon’ble District Magistrate cum District Collector Salem, to take physical possession of mortgaged property and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.43,38,79,266.33/-

¶19

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶20

3.1 The applicant is a SME partnership firm represented by its partner. They are one of the best Dhal and Gram flour manufacturer having national and international reputation. The applicants approached the respondent bank for their expansion and obtained the following loan amounts:-

¶21

Term Loan: Rs.1,70,00,000/-

¶22

Working capital term loan: Rs.20,00,00,000/-

¶23

Cash credit loan: Rs.9,00,00,000/-

¶24

Foreign Inland Term Loan: Rs.2,56,00,000/-

¶25

and mortgaged factory buildings, workmen quarters, and their own residences favoring the respondent bank, all are inside the same compound.

¶26

3.2 The applicant have obtained credit facilities from the respondent bank with a Parri Passu charge with Canara Bank Salem, due to rough weather and several other foreign payments didn’t materialize the business of the applicant didn’t run properly. Hence, applicant defaulted in repayment to which the bank issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 11.08.2015

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

demanding a sum of Rs.33,93,48,480.38 to be repaid in spite of regular repayment made.

¶31

3.3 On receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand notice, the applicants raised their objection vide letter dated 19.08.2015 under Section 13(3A) which is received by the respondent on 22.08.2015. However the bank have not replied to the Section 13 (3) (A) objections, but bank have issued Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 13.11.2015 though applicants made a payment of Rs.7.05 crores between October 2022 to December 2022 for proving bonafide and also deposited Rs.9.00 crores as an upfront payment towards OTS of Rs.35.00 crores.

¶32

3.4 The respondent received the payments for consideration of the OTS however sought to enforce the Order of the District Magistrate dated 18.08.2022 and issued a letter dated 19.12.2022 seeking police protection for the purpose of taking physical possession along with structure and servants quarters.

¶33

3.5 It is the case of the applicant that there are 186 labors currently employed and more than 10 servants’ are living in quarters with their family along with 20 school going children and have produced latest EB charge incurred by respondent bank.

¶34

3.6 It is contended that the applicant came to know about the measures only when the police visited the factory at 20.12.2022 and handed over the letter dated 19.12.2022 where the respondent sought for seeking police

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

protection to take physical possession. Hence, aggrieved by the measures taken by the respondent bank the present SA is filed.

¶39

3.7 In the grounds of the SA, it is contended that the classification of the account as NPA is against the norms and guidelines of RBI, bank has not adhered to the requirement enumerated under Section 13 (2) and Rule 5 of the SARFAESI Act, not replied to the objection dated 19.08.2015 raised under S.13[3A]. The bank while filing the application before the District Magistrate have not complied with provisions mandated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, has not filed mandatory affidavit with the District Magistrate enumerating the statutory compliances while issuing the notices.

¶40

3.8 Further the respondent bank have suppressed the receipt of the representation from the applicant which is received by the bank on 21.08.2015 and have not replied to the said representation. The Learned District Collector have not considered the application as per the S.14 requirements relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Radaan Textiles and the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Noble Kumar Case.

¶41

3.9 The S.14 order is totally silent and ld. Magistrate does not discuss about the mandatory requirements as laid under Section 14 and the outstanding amount due. Hence the order is totally violative of the requirements and it does not comply the requirements under Section 14 of the Act.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

3.10 Further the Section 13(4) Possession notice alleged to be issued by the bank is not asper Rule 8 and Sub Section 13(8) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules; the bank has not registered under CERSAI with effect from 01.09.2016, hence applicant prays to set aside the Section 14 order as null and void and unsustainable.

¶46

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶47

4.1 The respondent bank in their counter submits that the challenge to Section 14 order passed by Hon’ble District Magistrate cum District Collector, Salem dated 18.08.2022 is barred by period of limitation and prays for dismissal of SA. In column IV of the application, the applicant have stated that they came to know about the impugned order only when the Police Officials served a letter dated 19.12.2022 issued by the bank to the Police Officials to take the Physical Possession of the property is strictly denied.

¶48

4.2 The office of the District Magistrate cum District Collector, Salem has forwarded copy of the order to all the applicants here in which is produced at Page No.96 of the typed sets and the impugned order has been marked to the 3^rd applicant who have received the same. Hence, the applicant have suppressed the knowledge of the Order from letter dated 19.12.2022 and have misrepresented in the limitation column.

¶49

4.3 The Section 14 order is only a procedural step and an administrative order to take the physical possession of the mortgage property in continuation of the SARFAESI action taken by the respondent bank and

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

consequent to the resistance and denial by applicants to handover the property, hence the SA is not maintainable.

¶54

4.4 It is the case of the bank that the first applicant with his partners, the applicants 2 to 4 during June 2009 requested for financial assistance aggregating to Rs.2472.30 lakhs comprising of Cash credit limit of Rs.2100 lakhs, credit limit of Rs.300 lakhs, Rupee Term loan of Rs.72.30 lakhs towards takeover of existing credit facilities from HDFC Bank availed by the 1^st applicant. Accordingly the respondent had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.2472.30 lakhs by way of intent letter dated 17.07.2009 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the applicants herein.

¶55

4.5 The applicants deposited the original title deeds, mortgaged property and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 20.01.2010 which is registered with Joint 3 Salem West Sub Registrar Office as Dpc.Nos.690 of 2010, 487 of 2010, 486 of 2010, 485 of 2010 and 484 of 2010 which reflects the creation of equitable mortgage in favor of the respondent bank. The charge created by the applicants in favor of the respondent bank is duly registered with CERSAI vide Asset IDs are 100002599207, 100002599471, 100002599622, 100002599873, 100002600045, 100002600288, 100002600445, 100002600679, 100002600839, 100002601007. Additionally the applicants admits the availing of loan, creation of securities, and also acknowledges the credit facilities from Canara Bank, Salem and respondent bank have paripasu charge on the mortgaged property at the request of the applicant.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

4.6 The credit facilities were renewed and also enhanced vide letter of intent on 27.03.2014 for revival and restructuring of Cash Credit and Rupee Term loan with an overall limit of Rs.3213.78 lakhs and the applicants executed the relevant documents in favor of the respondent bank. Additionally, applicants executed Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.12.2014 registered as Doc.No.387 of 2015 in favor of the respondent bank for securing the enhanced limit. After availing the credit facility the loan account was irregular and were restructured by the respondent bank enabling the applicants to repay the dues

¶60

4.7 Despite restructuring the loan accounts, the account remained irregular, respondent bank classified the loan account as NPA on 01.05.2015 as per the RBI Guidelines. Pursuant to the classification of account as NPA, the bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand notice on 11.08.2015 calling upon the applicants to repay the outstanding amount due as on 01.08.2015 with further interest thereon. The Demand notice

¶61

was served to applicants and applicants failed to repay the dues as demanded, similarly Section 13(2) Demand notice was also issued by the Canara Bank to the applicants.

¶62

4.8 After the receipt of Section 13(2) Demand notice, applicant failed to repay the dues as per the demand, except sending a letter dated 19.08.2015 informing the decision to pay the outstanding amount on or before 31.01.2016, though the applicant failed to repay the demanded dues as the respondent bank holds more than 60% of the amount favoring the

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

secured creditors issued Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 13.11.2015, the Possession notice is served on the applicants, affixed on the mortgaged property on 13.11.2015 as per the Rule 8 of SARFAESI Act and the same is also published in two Newspapers one in “Dinamani” (Tamil) and another in “The New Indian Express” (English) both dated on 19.11.2015. Thus the issuance of the Section 13(4) Possession notice is in conformity with Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002, hence the allegations made by applicants in para 3 of the SA is not tenable.

¶67

4.9 The respondent has also filed O.A. No.641 of 2016 before Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and the said O.A. has been transferred to Hon’ble DRT, Coimbatore bearing T.A No.118 of 2019 and it is still pending. The applicants have also filed a counter claim claim for a sum of Rs.274.56 Crores against the respondent bank and the bank has filed a detailed reply which is still pending.

¶68

4.10 As there is no repayments towards the credit facilities, the bank has proceeded further and issued a sale notice dated 17.03.2016 fixing the sale on 22.04.2016 which was challenged by the applicant in S.A. No.172 of 2016 on the file of Hon’ble DRT, Madurai which is renumbered as TSA 669 of 2019 and re transferred to Hon’ble DRT, Coimbatore where in ad Interim stay of confirmation of sale subject to payment of 4 installments of Rs.3,45,00,000/- each, however the applicant failed to comply the conditional order and the SA is still pending.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

4.11 Since there were no bidders for the schedule sale dated 17.03.2016 and the respondent bank have issued another sale notice dated 20.05.2016 fixing the auction sale on 23.06.2016 which is yet again challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble DRT, Madurai in S.A. No.245 of 2016, the Tribunal had granted interim stay till 23.08.2016 subject to payment of Rs.9,50,00,000/- in two installments. As the applicant didn’t comply with the Conditional order, S.A. is dismissed on 02.09.2016.

¶73

4.12 The respondent bank has filed Section 14 application before the District Magistrate cum District Collector, Salem on 05.07.2017 and also filed an affidavit in Section 14 application, however there was no order passed by the Magistrate cum District Collector and respondent bank filed Writ Petition bearing No.24047 of 2019 for Mandamus to direct the District Magistrate cum District Collector to pass necessary orders in the said Section 14 application. The Hon’ble High court of Madras vide order dated 22.08.2019 directed the District Collector to pass the order under Section 14 application from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶74

4.13 Further the applicant have filed a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP No.7845 of 2022 against the order passed in the writ petition and the same is withdrawn by vide order dated 29.04.2022. As the District Magistrate didn’t pass the order as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the respondent bank has filed Contempt Petition bearing No.1264 of 2022 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the applicant has filed a Sub Application No.386 of 2022 to implead them in the contempt proceedings in order to get stay of Section 14 application.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

4.14 The applicant categorically stated that they would settle the entire dues within four months, Hon’ble High Court had refused to entertain the application then the applicants withdrawn the Sub Application and Contempt Petition by the Hon’ble Court. The District Magistrate cum District Collector, Salem had passed the Order in conformity with Section 14 of the Act, which the applicants have conveniently suppressed the facts and filed the present SA.

¶79

4.15 The respondent bank denies that the Section 14 application is not filed along with mandatory affidavit rendered all the details of the steps taken by the bank under Section 14 and outstanding amount due. There is no requirement in mentioning about the installments paid under the Section 14 application and the applicants themselves admitted default to the loan installments and the outstanding dues. Subsequent to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 25.07.2022, the applicant requested for One Time Settlement letter vide Letter dated 12.08.2022 offering to pay Rs.35 crores and also to with draw the counter claim before the Hon’ble DRT, Coimbatore.

¶80

4.16 The applicant approached the respondent for OTS on various occasions viz.,Rs.12 crore dated 06.03.2018, Rs.13.50 crore dated 21.03.2018, Rs.15.50 crore dated 08.02.2021, Rs.15.50 crore dated 04.03.2021, Rs.18.50 crore dated 09.12.2021, which considered and vide bank vide e-mail dated 23.09.2022 informed applicant for a payment of Rs.9.50 crores to be made, and additionally Rs.4.00 crores is already paid to respondent bank would consider letter of approval for OTS for Rs.35

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

crores, however the applicant failed to honor the commitments and sought time by vide letter dated 01.11.2022 requested the respondent bank to grant time for payment till 30.11.2022.

¶85

4.17 However 1^st applicant paid only sum of Rs.2 Crores and the applicant didn’t honor the OTS proposal and the OTS proposal didn’t materialize. The payments by the applicant have duly adjusted to the loan account and the bank has proceeded to recover the legitimate amounts from the applicant. The applicants in their SA is only trying to get sympathy by projecting the number of employees on the firms, hence the commitments to repay the outstanding amount cannot take shelter in the name of employees especially if they want to continue their business, they must be more vigilant in their repayments. Any inconvenience caused to the employees, the applicants are solely responsible and a total outstanding amount of Rs.101,33,99,698.44 as on 16.08.20222 which is payable by applicant towards the credit facility.

¶86

4.18 The contentions of the applicant that the bank failed to reply to Section 13(3A) letter dated 19.08.2015 of the Act cannot sustainable, as the contents of the letter has not objected to the Section 13(2) Demand notice nor made any representation and in fact only communicated their decision to pay the dues on or before 31.01.2016 which the applicants did not honor. Further to their Sub Application in the Contempt Petition, the applicant have not taken a plea of violation of Section 13 (3A) and approached for OTS on many occasions vide letter dated 06.03.2018, 21.03.2018, 08.02.2021, 04.03.2021, 09.12.2021 and 12.08.2022

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

4.19 Even admitting that there was an objection to the contents of the applicant would clearly establish their relinquishment of a known right, they chose to abandon the statutory claim and failed to challenge the Section 13(4) Possession notice and in fact the sale notice was not pressed by the applicants, which clearly reflects the delay and laches. The contentions that the property is not registered is denied and in fact

¶91

4.20 Hence the respondent bank submits that they have followed all the procedures as prescribed under the Act and prays for dismissal of the S.A.

¶92

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶93

5.1 It is manifest from the records that undisputedly the applicants admits the availing of the credit facilities from the respondent bank as under:

¶94

(i) Term Loan: Rs.1,70,00,000/-

¶95

(ii) Working Capital term loan: Rs.20,00,00,000/-

¶96

(iii) Cash Credit Loan: Rs.9,00,00,000/-

¶97

(iv) Foreign Inland Term Loan: Rs.2,56,00,000/- totaling to Rs.2472.30 lakhs.

¶98

5.2 As a security towards the credit facilities applicants have deposited original Title Deeds dated 20.10.2010 which is also registered in the officer of Joint 3 Salem West Sub Registrar Officer as Doc.No.690 of 2010, 487 of 2010, 486 of 2010, 485 of 2010, which constitutes the secured asset favoring the Respondent bank and the charge is also registered with CERSAI vide Asset IDs are 100002599207, 100002599471,

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

100002600288,

100002599622, 100002599873, 100002600045,

¶104

100002600445, 100002600679, 100002600839, 100002601007 as

¶105

required under S26D of the Act empowering the bank to initiate measures under the SARFAESI act by enforcing the security available to them.

¶106

5.3 Further it is also a undeniable fact that the applicants had availed credit facilities from Canara Bank, Salem Branch and the Respondent bank also conceded paripasu charge in favor of the Canara bank, the limits were renewed vide letter dated 27.03.2014 for revival and restructuring the Cash Credit and Rupee Term Loan with an overall limit of Rs.3213.78 lakhs.

¶107

5.4 Due to default in repayments towards the credit facilities, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 01.05.2015, initiated measures under the Act, issued S.13[2] demand notice on 11.08.2015 followed by S.13[4] possession notice dated 13.11.2015 which is admittedly received by the applicants. Further the bank has filed S.14 application and obtained an Order on 18.08.22 to take physical possession of the property which is impugned herein.

¶108

5.5 The respondent bank opposes the present SA as barred by limitation as SA is not within the period of 45 days. The applicant claims to be in knowledge of the S.14 order when the Police Officials visited the property the property on 20.12.2022 and served them letter dated 19.12.2022, which is produced on Page No.81 of their typed set of documents.

¶109

5.6 The letter is issued by the bank officials to the Commissioner of Police, requesting for adequate police protection to take the physical

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

possession of the secured asset as per the directions of the Hon’ble District Magistrate and District Collector Salem.

¶114

5.7 It is seen from the contents of the letter that the bank have intimated to the Police Commissioner their intention to take the physical possession vide letter dated 03.12.2022, and requested to arrange necessary police protection referencing to earlier letters dated 28.10.2022 seeking for the help to take the physical possession of the property.

¶115

5.8 Though the applicant relies on the said letter dated 19.12.2022 as the date of knowledge of S.14 order dated 18.08.2022, is contrary to the documents produced by the applicants. In fact, the Office of District Magistrate and District Collector has sent the copy of the Section 14 Order to applicants as evident from the order copy produced by the applicant at Page No.83 to 96 in their typed set of documents. It is seen that the copies of the S.14 order is sent to applicants and ticked for sending the copy to Smt. K. Jayanthi who is 3^rd applicant, and the order is also served to M/s. NadhiDall Mill Limited, Shri. S.A. Kumar, Smt. K. Jayanthi, Shri. K. Arun.

¶116

5.9 Per contra, the applicant does not dispute that the copy of the S.14 Order is sent by District Magistrate cum District Collector to all the applicants which in fact is produced by them, but raises untenable arguments that the bank has not produced acknowledgement card for proof of service of the Order sent by the Office of the District Magistrate cum District Collector.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

5.10 The Ld. Counsel for applicant vehemently argue that the bank has failed to produce the copy of the acknowledgement card for having received the order copy sent from the Office of District Magistrate cum District Collector, hence bank cannot raise the issue of limitation to challenge the order dated 18.08.2022.

¶121

5.11 The said argument of the applicant cannot be believed as there is presumption under law that it is served as the copy of the Order is sent from Government authority to the address given in S.14 application. The Tribunal places reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench

¶122

of Telangana High Court in the matter of M/s. Dhanta and Co Vs.

¶123

Andhra Bank where it is held in para 15 as under:

¶124

“Thus, it would be sufficient, if it is shown that such notices were, in fact, issued and sent to the borrower at the address given. Once, it is shown as a fact that such a notice having been sent by registered post, Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 would get attracted and the same shall be deemed to have been delivered in the ordinary course of post. In this regard reference can be made to the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CC Alavi Haji vs. Polapetty Muhammed and Another1, wherein the Curt dealt with the issue of deemed service of notice by applying the principle of ‘presumption’ under Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement rendered in the case of N. Parameswaran Unni Vs. G.Kannan2 also explained the circumstances when the service of notice has to be presumed.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

5.12 The Hon’ble High Court of Sate of Telangana in Writ Petition No.3469 of 2020 decided on 24.12.2020 in the matter of Dhanya &

¶129

Co., Vs. Andhra Bank has held that

¶130

“once it is shown as a fact that such a notice having been sent by registered post, Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 would get attracted and the same shall be deemed to have been delivered in the ordinary course of post”

¶131

5.13 It is seen from the Section 14 order that copy of the Order is sent to 3^rd applicant’s address at No.270, Narasimman Road, Shevapet, Salem – 636 009, the same address as is also shown in the address of the 3^rd applicant in the SA.

¶132

5.14 Hence, it is to be concluded that the applicant had the knowledge of the S.14 Order dated 18.08.2022, has not preferred an appeal within the period of 45 days as required under S.17 of the Act. Moreover, the applicants challenged the sale within the period of 45 days before DRT Madurai are fully aware of the time limit to challenge any measure under S17 of the Act within 45 days.

¶133

5.15 In fact the applicants had no substantiation to counter the contention of limitation in challenging Section 14 order as raised by the respondent and the applicants have suppressed the material facts before this Tribunal about the cases filed before DRT, Madurai, sub application filed by them in

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

contempt petition filed by the bank before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

¶138

5.16 The respondent bank emphasis that the present SA is not filed within the period of limitation and S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to DRT in S.17 of the Act placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram and Ors, relied on para 9 of the judgments where in it is held as under:

¶139

“ that an application under Section 17(1) is like a suit and the limitation Act applied as per the virtue of the 2 special laws. Therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no regards in the original proceedings like a suit, The Tribunal under Section 17(5) has adjudicated the measures taken by the respondent bank where in grounds and in the Rules made there under.”

¶140

5.17 Evidently, the SA if filed on 07.01.2023 challenging the S.14 Order dated 18.08.2022 there is a delay of 142 days, which cannot be considered in absence of any delay application. In the limitation column it is submitted that the applicant came to know when the police officials visited the property and served a letter dated 19.12.2022 issued by the respondent

¶141

bank to the police officials for seeking police protection for taking over the possession of the secured assets on 27^th and 28^th December, 2022.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Therefore, the above application is filed within the limitation period within 45 days from the date of 19.12.2022.

¶146

5.18 Further, in the SA, under the ‘Matter not pending in any other court etc’ column it is stated by applicants that ‘the applicants further declare that the subject matter of the present appeal filed is not pending before any Court of law or any other authority or any other Bench of the Tribunal. There is no caveat served from the respondent’

¶147

5.19 The question whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal can entertain an application under S.17 of the Act after 45 days of measure referred to in sub section [4] of S.13 is no more res integra.

¶148

5.20 For appreciation of the facts S.17(1) is extracted as under: -

¶149

S.17(1):

¶150

Application against measures to recover secured debts (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

¶151

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

¶152

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section(1) of section.17.]

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

5.21 A reading of the above provision, it is palpable that there is no provision made by the Parliament for condonation of delay in approaching

¶157

the DRT against the measures, no matter whatever be the cause and howsoever justifiable it may sound. Unless power to condone delay is legislatively granted expressly or by inference, the Tribunal cannot condone delay. It is the indication of Parliament that one who wants to have redressal must knock the doors of DRT within 45 days and subsequently those doors should permanently stand closed. In other words, law does not come to the aid of those who are sleepy & late.

¶158

5.22 Thus, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any measures under Section 13[4] is required to approach the Tribunal under S.17 within 45 days from the date of the measure. Evidently, the present SA challenging the S.14 Order dated 18.08.2022 is not filed within the period of 45 days and the same is filed with a delay of 148 days.

¶159

5.23 This view of the Tribunal is confirmed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Bank of Baroda – Vs.Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 671 , at para 12, observed that a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security is as under:

¶160

“ The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. this Court held

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act, have remained inconclusive even after a decade.”

¶165

5.24 Further the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Akshat Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kalpana Chakroborty has taken view that S.17 is mandatory and therefore the question of condoning the delay does not arise. If the Parliament intended that DRT should have power to condone delay, it would have enacted a provision like S.5 of Limitation Act to SAFAESI Act. As it consciously chosen not to do it clearly emphasis the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.

¶166

5.25 The Tribunal is of the view that DRT has no power to condone delay in an application under S.17 of the Act, as it is a special law for speedy recovery of money due to bank in enforcing the security available to them is reinforced at para 65 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors [Mumbai][P] Ltd., reported in [2024] 2 SCC 1 at para 65 which is reproduced here under:

¶167

“The SARFAESI Act is a special law containing an overriding clause in comparison to any other law in force. The SARFAESI Act is a special law of recovery with a paradigm shift that permits expeditions recovery for the banks and the financial institutions without intervention of Courts. If the general law

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

is allowed to govern in the manner as sought to be argued by the borrowers, it will defeat the very object and purpose….”

¶172

5.26 Therefore, it is obvious that when a special legislation grants aright of action it is subject to certain conditions and create a forum for its implementation, that right becomes exercisable on satisfying such conditions and not otherwise and Limitation period is one such condition.

¶173

5.27 It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

¶174

"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds".

¶175

Hence, the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

¶176

5.28 The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1797 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.22192 of 2007 in the case titled

¶177

K.PJayan vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd and

¶178

others decided on 31.08.2015 had categorically held that the power to

¶179

SA No.14/2023

¶180

22 13.05.2025

¶181

condone delay in entertaining an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It further held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot consider an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant paras is extracted as under:

¶182

“7. Referring to these provisions the contention urged before us is that since section 24 of the RDB Act makes Limitation Act applicable and as the DRT constituted under the RDB Act is conferred with jurisdiction under section 17, Limitation Act governs applications made in a proceedings under section 17 also. We are unable to accept this contention. Both the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act are independent enactments, although certain provisions of the RDB Act are made applicable in respect of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act also. However, that does not mean that every provision of the RDB Act would apply to every proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In so far as this case is concerned, proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act and in view of the provisions contained in section 17 conferring jurisdiction on the DRT constituted under RDB Act application is made by the appellant before the DRT. That does not mean that provisions of section 24 of the RDB Act governing the proceedings taken thereunder would get automatically attracted to such proceedings before the DRT. Therefore, the contention raised relying on section 24 in so far as this case is concerned is only to be rejected and we do so. This is further clear from section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, which confines the applicability of the Limitation Act to measures under section 13(4) of the said Act.”

¶183

5.29 Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has also considered

¶184

the issue in the case titled The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs.

¶185

K.J. George, order dated 02.11.2020 has placed reliance on K.P. Jayan

¶186

V. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and has held that

¶187

DRT has no power to condone the delay u/s.17 of the Act.

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

5.30 As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, an application against measures to recover secured debts, must be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. It further observed that "The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security, which can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr, this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.

¶192

5.31 However, the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and in support of Tribunal’s view, reliance is placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam where it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed, if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. The court also observed "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

¶193

5.32 The Hon’ble Apex Court also noted the following observations made in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan

¶194

Mumbai , (2012) 5 SCC 157, while dismissing the SLP:

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

"The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation."

¶199

Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The

¶200

Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram

¶201

and Ors, where it is observed that an application under Section 17(1) is like a suit and the limitation Act applied as per the virtue of the 2 special laws.

¶202

5.33 The Tribunal also places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Kailasam P – Vs.- The Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer in Writ Petition No.11273 of 2024 (GM-DRT) has held that:

¶203

“law of Limitation fixes upon a particular period within which a party is entitled to institute legal proceedings and if he fails to do so, ordinarily the cause of action dies subject to just all exceptions. Law of Limitation is statute of repose. True it is that any welfare State like ours is bound in good faith to furnish its citizens all needful legal remedy however it is not bound to keep its Courts and Tribunals open ad infinitum. If

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

an aggrieved person neglects or refuses to apply for redress within the prescribed period of limitation, his claim is lost in the lapse of time.”

¶208

5.34 In other words, the statutory time of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act is mandatory and no discretion has been conferred upon the DRT to extend such period. It is pertinent to note that the Securitization Act is for quick enforcement of the security interest created favouring the respondent bank for the recovery of the amount due.

¶209

5.35 In fact the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder cast an obligation upon the secured creditor for strict compliance of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Each measure is to be followed meticulously giving a time frame to proceed further. Firstly, the measures can be initiated after the account is classified as NPA, then issuance of statutory notice ie., demand notice demanding outstanding due to be repaid within 60 days.

¶210

5.36 The secured creditor must wait for completion of 60 days and then proceeds further under S.13[4] possession notice which is challengeable within a period of 45 days. Similarly, the Order of CJM or DM is also to be challenged within 45 days. In other words, ample opportunity is granted by the Act for an aggrieved person to invoke his right of appeal under S.17 of the Act within a period of 45 days from the date of measure. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder puts the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor notices in advance

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

before taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 and 9, giving the aggrieved person ample of time and opportunities to assail measure within a period of 45 days.

¶215

5.37 Thus, the provisions of the Act and Rules ensures that the borrowers have advance notice of the proposed measure to be taken by the secured creditor. The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda – Vs.- Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd has given a quietus to the conundrum which existed until that time on the power of the DRT to condone the delay in filing an SA after the statutory period of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act.

¶216

5.38 In the instant matter admittedly the challenge to S.14 order is not within the period of 45 days, as the applicant has failed to invoke their right to challenge the S.14 Order dated 18.08.2022 within the period of 45 days, the Tribunal comes to inevitable conclusion that the applicant has failed to make out a case to condone the delay of 142 in preferring the present SA.

¶217

5.39 Now, considering the challenge to S.14 order, the Tribunal is posed with the question whether the same is amenable for challenge before this Tribunal?

¶218

5.40 It is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 of the SARFAESI

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Act, 2002 is ministerial and non- adjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶223

5.41 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra , held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The Bombay High Court judgement is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgement dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶224

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶229

5.42 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ., held

¶230

that while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶231

5.43 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act states that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under S.14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶232

5.44 Thus, the S. 14 order is passed by the Ld. CJM after due consideration and is only an execution order where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶233

5.46 In the instant matter, it is seen from the S.14 application filed by the secured creditor along with the affidavit confirming the due compliance of S.14[1] to [ix] by rendering all the details as required under the proviso and on examination of the same the Hon’ble CJM has allowed

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

the petition. Therefore the Tribunal is not persuaded to interfere in the S.14 Order dated 18.08.2022 in Roc.No.18555/2017/C5 passed by Hon’ble District Magistrate cum District Collector Salem, and the same is held as lawful order.

¶238

5.45 It is manifest from records that applicants approached the respondent for OTS on various occasions viz.,Rs.12 crore dated 06.03.2018, Rs.13.50 crore dated 21.03.2018, Rs.15.50 crore dated 08.02.2021, Rs.15.50 crore dated 04.03.2021, Rs.18.50 crore dated 09.12.2021, which the bank considered, communicated vide bank vide e- mail dated 23.09.2022 informed applicant for a payment of Rs.9.50 crores to be made, and additionally Rs.4.00 crores is already paid to respondent bank would consider letter of approval for OTS for Rs.35 crores, however the applicant failed to honor the commitments and sought time by vide letter dated 01.11.2022 requested the respondent bank to grant time for payment till 30.11.2022.

¶239

5.46 It is also pertinent to mention that the loan account of the applicants is classified as NPA way back in 2015, still the respondent bank as secured creditor is unsuccessful in recovering the colossal outstanding amount of Rs.43,38,79,266.33p by enforcing the security under the Act.

¶240

5.47 The applicants after availing huge credit facilities under parri passu charge is frustrating the measures taken by the bank by challenging each measures, offering to settle the entire liability under various OTS as and when measures under the Act were taken have failed miserably in spite

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

of sufficient opportunities granted by the bank as a well from the Tribunal when measures were challenged.

¶245

5.48 Accordingly, SA.14/2023 is dismissed. I nterim Order granted,

¶246

if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶247

Sd/- (S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶248

(Dictated to Steno (MG), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 13^th day of May, 2025)

¶249

ANNEXURES

¶250

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶251

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Appeal U/s. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act dated 05.01.2023.	A-1
2.	Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank dated 11.08.2015.	A-2
3.	Reply to the Demand Notice dated 19.08.2015.	A-3
4.	Possession Notice dated 13.11.2015.	A-4
5.	Petition filed U/s. 14.	A-5
6.	Letter issued by the Respondent Bank to the Police Officials dated 19.12.2022.	A-6
7.	Letter issued by the Respondent Bank to the Police Officials dated 28.10.2022.	A-7
8.	Impugned order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem dated 18.08.2022.	A-8
9.	Photograph.	A-9
10.	Staff ID Card.	A-10
11.	Electricity Bill.	A-11
12.	Email.	A-12
13.	Details of Payments.	A-13

¶252

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Memorandum Deposit of Title deeds Doc No.387 of 2015 executed by the applicant in favour of the Respondent dated 11.12.2014.	R-1
2.	Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank to the third Applicant along with Acknowledgement card dated 11.08.2015.	R-2
3.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank to Applicant along with Acknowledgement card dated 13.11.2015.	R-3
4.	Proof of affixture of the Possession Notice.	R-4
5.	Paper Publication for Possession Notice published in The New India Express and Dinamani in Dharmapuri Edition dated 19.11.2015.	R-5
6.	Petition and Affidavit filed by the respondent before the District Magistrate Salem in ROC No.18555 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017.	R-6
7.	Order in W.P.No.24047 of 2019 passed by the Hon’ble High court of Madras dated 22.08.2019.	R-7
8.	Order in Contempt Petition No.1294 of 2022 passed by the Hon’ble High court of Madras dated 25.07.2022.	R-8
9.	Order in Sub Application No.386 of 2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 16.08.2022.	R-9
10.	Order in Contempt Petition in 1264 of 2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 22.08.2022.	R-10
11.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 06.03.2018.	R-11
12.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 14.03.2018.	R-12
13.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 21.03.2018.	R-13
14.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 31.03.2018.	R-14
15.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 08.02.2021.	R-15
16.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 25.02.2021.	R-16
17.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 04.03.2021.	R-17
18.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 17.03.2021.	R-18
19.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 09.12.2021.	R-19

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

20.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 08.02.2022.	R-20
21.	OTS Proposal given by the Applicant to the respondent dated 12.08.2022.	R-21
22.	Reply by the respondent to the applicant dated 17.08.2022.	R-22
23.	Application in S.A. No.172 of 2016 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble DRT-Madurai dated 15.03.2016.	R-23
24.	Proceeding in S.A.No.172 of 2016 passed by the Hon’ble DRT, Madurai dated 13.04.2016.	R-24

¶261

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶262

PROPERTY PERTAINING TO SHRI.S.A.KUMAR, Respondent No.2

¶263

Item-1

¶264

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint -3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK : Salem West TOWN : Salem VILLAGE : Pallapatti S.F NUMBER : 151/1 New No.151/1D New No: Ward-T, Block-19, T.S.No.42/5 DOOR NUMBER: 57D/2 (Part) EXTENT: 2079 Square Feet With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 26.09.2005-Doc.No.1657/2005 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

¶265

Boundaries:-

¶266

North & West of the sale deed mentioned property of Tmt.P.Jeya W/o. Palanisamy south of the properties K.Jayanthi-1. K.Arun-2 East of 20 feet width south-north road, In the midst, East West 63 feet on the Northern side East West 63 feet on the Southern side South North 33 feet on the Eastern side South North 33 feet on the Western side

¶267

Item-2

¶268

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint -3 DISTRICT : Salem

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

TALUK : Salem West TOWN : Salem

¶273

VILLAGE : Pallapatti

¶274

S.F NUMBER : 151/1 New No.151/1D New No: Ward-T, Block19,T.S.No.42/5

¶275

DOOR NUMBER : 57D/2 (Part)

¶276

EXTENT : 5006 Square Feet With

¶277

Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 26.09.2005-Doc.No. 1656/2005 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

¶278

Boundaries

¶279

North of the property of K.Jayanthi and K.Arun South of the property of K.Jayanthi, K.Arun and S.A.Kumar East of 20 feet width south north pathway and another property of S.A.Kumar West of the property of K.Jayanthi.

¶280

In the midst,

¶281

East West Southem side in cross 158 feet 6 Angulam, East West Northem side from West to East 63 feet, from there towards North 33 feet from there towards East cross 90 feet South North 35 feet on Eastern Side South North 32 feet on the Western side.

¶282

Item-3

¶283

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT: Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN: Salem VILLAGE : Salem Town WARD NUMBER: 2-A' Division New No: Ward-AB, Block-9, T.S.No.12

¶284

EXTENT : 1742 Square Feet With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 13.04.2006-Doc.No.706/2006 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

¶285

Boundaries:-

¶286

North of the property of C.Jagadheeswari and Electrician Venkatesan

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

South of the property of Rice Shop Raja, G.R.Venkatesh and PadhmanabaChettiar and Shevapet Main Road, East of the property of Diwakar S/o. Keshavanchettiar and Rice shop Raja and Srinivasan

¶291

West of the property of G.R.Venkatesh, PadhmanabaChettiar, and lane. 2^nd Item

¶292

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK : Salem West TOWN : Salem : Village : Shevapet WARD NUMBER : 2-A Division New No: Ward-AB, Block-9, T.S.No.12 EXTENT : 909 Square Feet With

¶293

Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 13.04.2006-Doc.No.706/2006 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

¶294

Boundaries ; -

¶295

North and East of the 1" item properth of R.Sundaresan South of East West Road, West of the property of C.PadmanapaChettiar. Total extent of the property in both Items (1742+909 Square Feet)=2,651 Square Feet

¶296

PROPERTY PERTAINING TO SMT.K.JAYANTHI. Respondent No.3

¶297

Item-1

¶298

REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN : Salem VILLAGE: Pallapatti

¶299

S.F NUMBER: 151/1 New No.151/1D New No: Ward-T,Block-19, T.S.No.42/6

¶300

EXTENT: Acre 0.25 Cents with

¶301

Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 12.08.2004 Doc. No.1363/2004 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

Boundaries:-

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

East of the agri land of K.Arun West of the other lands of K.Jayanthi North of 6 lings east west cart track.

¶307

South of east west cart track

¶308

In the midst,

¶309

Northern side by East West cross 138 lings Southern side by East West cross 135 lings Eastern side South North 191 lings Western side south North 191 lings

¶310

Item -2

¶311

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT: Salem TALUK : Salem West Town: Salem VILLAGE: Pallapatti

¶312

S.F. NUMBER: 151/1 New No.151/D New No: Ward-T, Block-19, T.S.No.42/6

¶313

EXTENT : Acre 0.46 ¼ Cents

¶314

With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 11.08.2004-Doc. No. 1358/2004 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint-3 Boundaries:-

¶315

South of the item of property of K.Jayanthi in the sale deed Bearing Doc.No.1357/2004

¶316

West of the Agri land belongs to Palanisamy North of 6 lings east west cart track East of 38 lings east west cart track and the agri land of R.Srinivasan

¶317

In the midst,

¶318

East West 256 lings on the Northern side East West 276 ½ lings on the Southern side South North 145 lings on the Eastern side South North 216 ¾ lings on the Western side.

¶319

Item-3

¶320

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint -3 DISTRICT :Salem TALUK: Salem West VILLAGE : Pallapatti

¶325

New No Ward-T, Block-19, T.S.No.42/6

¶326

(1 Item) 151/1 New No.151/1D - (2 Item) 151/1 New No.151/1D

¶327

Acre 0.29 Cents Acre 0.18% Cents

¶328

Total Acre 0.47 % Cents

¶329

With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 11.08.2004-Doc.No.1357/2004 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint-3

¶330

Part A:

¶331

Boundaries for an extent of Acre 0.29 Cents

¶332

South of the remaining agri lands of P.Kandasamy West of the agri lands of palanisamy North of the property to an extent of Acre 0.46 ¼ Cents East of remaining properties of P.Kandasamy, 38 lings east west cart track

¶333

And the property to an extent of Acre 0.18 ¼ Cents

¶334

In the midst,

¶335

East West 254 lings on the Northern side East West 256 lings on the Southern side South North 114 lings on the Eastern side South North 114 lings on the Western side

¶336

Part B:

¶337

Boundaries for an extent of 0.18 ¾ Cents

¶338

South of the remaining agri lands of P.Kandasamy East of the remaining agri lands and Well of P.Kandasamy West of the 1^st item of property North of 38 lings east west cart track

¶339

In the midst,

¶340

East West 179 lings on the Northern side East West 191 lings on the Southern side

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

South North 97 lings on the Eastern side Western side by cross i.e., North West 54 lings from there towards North East cross 62 lings

¶345

Item-4

¶346

REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem East SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Yercaud DISTRICT : Salem TALUK: Yercaud Village : Kommakadu

¶347

S.F NUMBER :23/1B2C1 EXTENT : 5250 Square Feet With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 02.11.1990 Doc. No.381 of 1990 at the SRO of Yercaud.

¶348

Boundaries:-

¶349

North of the land of Aruna South of the land of kalarani West of Plot No.7 and pathway East of the land of Natarajan

¶350

Item -5

¶351

REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT: Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN: Salem VILLAGE: Pallapatti WARD NUMBER: E T.S. NUMBER: 16/3

¶352

OLD S.F.NUMBER : 681& 310 NEW T.S.NO: 16/3 New No: Ward- V, Block-35, T.S.No.24

¶353

EXTENT : Acre 0.65 Cents

¶354

With all rights as mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 14.02.1994 Doc.No. 178/1994

¶355

Boundaries being

¶356

West of ItteriPathwat, which starts towards south from Narasimman road South of the land in T.S.No.16/7 and odai, East of the Panchyat limit of pallapatti Village, North of T.S.No. 17/2 &T.S.No. 16/8

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Item-6

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West

¶362

SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN :Salem VILLAGE : Pallapatti S.F NUMBER : 151/1 New No.151/1A6 New No: Ward-T, Block-35, T.S.No.30

¶363

EXTENT : 11459 Square Feet (0.26 Acre) With

¶364

Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 15.12.1994-Doc.No.1570/1994 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint-3

¶365

Boundaries:-

¶366

West of 20 feet South North common road East and North of the lands of P.Kandasamy South of the Property of the wife of Perianna Nadar

¶367

In the midst of the above boundaries

¶368

South North 84 feet on the Eastern side, South North 94 feet on the Western side East West 128 ¾ feet on the Northern side East West 128 ¾ feet on the Southern side

¶369

Item-7 REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint-3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK : Salem West TOWN: Salem VILLAGE : Pallapatti

¶370

S.F NUMBER:151/1 New No.151/A6 New No: Ward-T, Block- 35, T.S.No.30

¶371

EXTENT : 11144 Square Feet (0.256/10 Cent) With Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 19.12.1994-Doc. No. 1605/1994 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Boundaries:

South of the property of the wife of PeriannaNadar, North of the property of Kandasamy West of the property of K.Jayanthi East of the property of Varadhappagounder and others

¶377

In the midst of the above boundaries

¶378

East West 118 ¼ feet on the Northern side East West 92 ¼ feet on the Southern side South North 94 feet on the Eastern side South North on the Western side from south to north cross 36 feet then From cross 45 feet from there cross 30 feet i.e., south North 111 feet on the Western side Together with buildings and other structures present and future.

¶379

PROPERTY PERTAINING TO SHRI.K.AURN, Respondent no.4

¶380

Item-1

¶381

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint -3 DISTRICT : Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN : Salem VILLAGE: Pallapatti S.F NUMBER: 151/1 New No.151/1D New No: Ward-T, Block-35, T.S.No.42/3 EXTENT: Acre 0.61.12 Cent with Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 21.09.2005 Doc. No.1639/2005 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint-3

¶382

Boundaries:-

¶383

North of the agricultural land belongs to Jayanthi South of 18 links width east-west cart track East of remaining properties of P.Kandasamy. West of 20 links width South North Cart tract

¶384

In the midst

¶385

Northern side by east-west 15 links from there North east cross 115 links From there North east cross 166 links. Southern side by east west 253 links from there cross 51 links. Eastern side by south North 267 links Western side by South North 195 links

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Item-2

REGISTRATION DISTRICT :Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint -3 DISTRICT: Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN : Salem VILLAGE : Pallapatti S.F NUMBER: 151/1 New No.151/1D New No: Ward-T, Block- 35, T.S.No.42/8 EXTENT : Acre 0.25 Cents with Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the Sale deed dated 28.07.2003-Doc.No.1159/2003 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint-3

¶391

Boundaries:-

¶392

East of the properties to an extent of 0.25 Acre belongs to K.Arun West of the property of R.Srinivasan North of 6 lings East West Cart track South of 38 lings east-west cart track,

¶393

In the midst,

¶394

Northern side by East West-cross 142 lings Southern side by East West cross 139 lings Eastern side by South North 193 lings Western side by South North 184 lings.

¶395

Item-3

¶396

¶397

Superstructures and all existing rights as mentioned in the sale deed dated 28.07.2003-Doc. No.1158/2003 at the S.RO of Salem Joint -3

¶398

Boundaries

¶399

East of 30 lings cart track West of Acre 0.25 cents belongs to K.Arun North of 6 lings cart track

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

South of 38 lings east west cart track

¶404

In the midst,

¶405

Northern side by East West cross 149 lings Southern side by East West 144 lings Eastern side by South North 184 lings Western side by South North 174 lings.

¶406

Together with buildings and other structures present and future.

¶407

PROPERTY BELONGING TO SMT.K.JAYANTHI & SHRI.K.ARUN & Respondent Nos. 3&4

¶408

REGISTRATION DISTRICT : Salem West SUB-REGISTRATION DISTRICT: Salem Joint - 3 DISTRICT: Salem TALUK: Salem West TOWN : Salem VILLAGE : Pallapatti

¶409

ITEM NO S.F.NUMBER EXTENT 1. 151/1 New No.151/1D 23.50 Cents N.NoWard-T, Block-35,T.S.No.42/4 2. 151/1 New No.151/1D N.no 16.34 Cents Ward-T, Block-35, T.S.No.42/7

¶410

Total Extent 39.84 Cents

¶411

In this an extent of 217½ square Feet of land has been gifted by K.Jayanthi and K.Arun in favour of Salem Corporation for purpose of formation of road. Hence the titleholders are in possession and enjoyment of the remaining properties.

¶412

Boundaries of 1^st item :-

¶413

North of the of V.Manoharan and P.Jaya South of 35 lings east west cart track East of 30 lings south north cart tract West of the other agri land of K.Jayanthi

¶414

In the midst,

¶415

Northern side by East 234 lings from there Northeast cross 126 lings Western side by south North 109 lings

¶416

Southern side by East West 91 lings from there, towards northeast 136 lings from there towards north cross 62 lings then from northern side northeast cross 179 ling

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

Boundaries for 2nd item :-

¶421

North of the property of K Jayanthi and K.Arun South of the property of Jaya and the agri lands of Jayanthi West of the agri lands of Jayanthi East of 30 lings south north cart tract

¶422

In the midst,

¶423

East West 430 lings on the Northem side East West 430 lings on the Southern side South North 38 lings on the Eastern side South North 38 lings on the Western side Together with buildings and other structures present and future.

¶424

LEASE HOLD RIGHTS OF M/S NANDHI DALL MILLS, Respondent

¶425

No.1

¶426

Item No 1:

¶427

The leasehold interest in the immovable properties situated in Salem Joint-3, Pallapatti Village, an extent of Acre 0.25 Cents under SF.No.151/1 New No.151/1D New No Ward-T, Block-35, T.S.No.42/8 Doc.No.1159/2003 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

¶428

Boundaries :-

¶429

East of the properties to an extent of 0.25 Acre belongs to K.ArunWest of the property of R.Srinivasan North of 6 lings East West Cart track South of 38 lings east-west cart track.

¶430

In the midst,

¶431

Northern side by East West cross 142 lings Southern side by East West 139 lings Eastern side by South North 193 lings Western side by South North 184 lings.

¶432

Item No 2:

¶433

The leasehold interest in the immovable properties situated in Salem Joint-3, Village, an extent of Acre 0.25 Cents Under SF.No.151/1 New No.151/1D

¶434

Doc. No. 1158/2003 at the S.R.O of Salem Joint -3

Boundaries:-

SA No.14/2023

13.05.2025

East of 30 lings cart track West of Acre 0.25 cents belongs to K.Arun North of 6 lings Cart track South of 38 lings east-west cart track. In the midst,

¶440

Northern side by East West cross 149 lings Southern side by East West 144 lings Eastern side by South North 184 lings Western side by South North 174 lings

¶441

together with all buildings and structures thereon and all plant and machinery attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth for all the listed properties.

¶442

Sd/(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Nandhi Dall Mills v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandhi Dall Mills v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Sridevi T versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sivasankari

Bank of Maharashtra versus Suyambulingam

City Union Bank Limited versus Avejoo Enterprises

Mr K Sivakumar S o R Kaliaperumal versus State Bank of India

Nabisha Leathers versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.